Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1.    #1  
  2. #2  
    From the Reuters article:
    "For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data," it said.

    Sounds good to me.


    I'm looking forward to the day when we have public access to live satellite video so that I can wave and see myself on my Treo.
  3.    #3  
    It makes me uncomfortable, but I think that day will come if things continue at this rate. We will all be on a continuous "Candid Camera." However, before the people get access, the "powers that be" will have a field day recording, observing and abusing the 24/7 surveillance. I don't like it at all. Of course, I've got nothing to hide; my life's an open book; it makes no difference to me...
  4. #4  
    If it makes you feel better, Reuters reports that the military is looking at this specficially for combat zones, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Wired added the Big Brother paranoia, and Engadget made up the "global" part.
  5. #5  
    UK already has a similar setup, but not integrated obviously, and it has not been useful in preventing incidents. It does however allow them to trace back from incidents. I dont really mind that, but it becomes intrusive if the infra-structure is used to give speeding tickets based on average speed from point a to point b.

    Surur
  6. #6  
    Maybe a little off topic...or not....but I have read, and even posted, on some items in the past:

    Car Tracking: GPS related devices that insurance agencies want to install in cars. Their spin is that they can save the customer money so that you only pay insurance for the days that you actually drive. That way if you only use your car every other day, then you will only pay for 1/2 a month of insurance premiums. But the reality is that that way they can charge more to those who speed. They can can charge more to those to go into "high crime" neighborhoods. They can charge those who drive more miles...etc...

    HOME DVRs: TV service providers (cable or sat) can now track and record which shows you record on your DVR. The advertisers are demanding more for their money as they are sure these customers are skipping their commercials. So sometimes they have to charge less for TV spots than 10 years ago. To help compensate there is the potential (don't have a clue if they have done anything like this yet) is that they can see if you record a lot of sports, then they can sell your info to local, regional, and national sports related products, events, etc... Or if you record a lot of home improvement shows then they can sell your info to Home Depot, Lowe's, etc.... I know there is a lot of regulation that was being tossed around over this very subject a few years ago, but don't know how all the cards fell.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/07/2007 at 02:10 PM.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    UK already has a similar setup, but not integrated obviously, and it has not been useful in preventing incidents. It does however allow them to trace back from incidents. I dont really mind that, but it becomes intrusive if the infra-structure is used to give speeding tickets based on average speed from point a to point b.

    Surur
    Perhaps this is entirely different from your pervasive public surveillance system, but it's interesting to note at least one crime was foiled due to a well-placed camera.
    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ol-webcam.html

Posting Permissions